The problem with economic efficiency is that it tends to be defined as the quickest path to profit. Certainly, this can be a good strategy; for example, if one deals in a time-sensitive market, one would do well to maximize profits in the short term. When it comes to production and distribution of commodities like food, the fastest path is not necessarily best, for a variety of reasons. The author of the book in question would do well to realize that the reason chicken costs so much in Japan is because that's what people are willing to pay. For this reason alone, it is innacurate to characterize the Japanese method of chicken production 'inneficient' or even 'less efficient.' Clearly, a different business model is at work here, and it appears to be working. 'Efficient' can also be defined as the most stable, sustainable path to profit. It seems that all to often, multinationals are taking advantage of the market rather than supporting it, reaping (raping) enormous profits in the short-term, but making little to no provisions for the future. Personally, I'm a bit baffled by this approach. Corporations have legal person-hood; I would think they would act in their best interests. Since a well-run corporation will outlive any of its constituent members, it would seem to follow that they would do something to ensure their continued existence. Then again, maybe that's what frivolous lawsuits and government subsidy are for... After all, the most 'efficient' way to pay the bills is to have someone else pay them for you.